So I ordered a new point and shoot....

[SLC Flyfishing]

My wife wanted a compact for general use with the kids. Our current P&S is a vintage 2003 Pentax model, it's nice but very long in the tooth.

You might be surprised, but I went ahead and bought a Canon. I went to best buy and checked them all out, there was this little Canon model that seemed nice, something like the 780 IS or something like that. I'm not expecting it to be that great, especially since it has 12 MP, but you can't get a p&S these days with any less than 10. I did really like the construction, it's small, heavy, and solid as a rock. Made from black steel, so it's super sexy!

Anyway it's going to be here later this week, hopefully it was a worthwhile purchase.

SLC

 

[soLoredd]

I'm looking for a P&S as well to compliment my XSi. Sometimes, the XSi is just too much for a 4 month old! My last P&S was a Canon S400 so I really need to see what's available now. That 780 IS looks really nice, please post an update after you get some use from it.

 

[romanaz]

i dont know if its a current model, but my roommates (3 of them) have the SD1100 or so, and love it. Relatively easy camera to work with, produces good pictures for what it is.

 

[yoyo5280]

Some of the Canon P&S take really nice photos, and have some fun to play with features.

Good choice I think, but I have never used that particular model.

-Omi

 

[ukuleleman]

12 megapixels is bad?

I'm not expecting it to be that great, especially since it has 12 MP, but you can't get a p&S these days with any less than 10.SLC

I don't understand what you mean by this, what's wrong with 10 or 12 megapixels? I have a Canon 400D and a Canon 5D mk 1, but I still have my first digital camera, a Fuji MX-1700 which has 1.5 megapixels!! it stood me in good stead for many years, but I know what cameras I prefer nowadays and I am afraid the Fuji isn't one of them, perhaps I have misunderstood but I read your words as if more pixels are a bad thing?

 

[leighonigar]

I don't understand what you mean by this, what's wrong with 10 or 12 megapixels? I have a Canon 400D and a Canon 5D mk 1, but I still have my first digital camera, a Fuji MX-1700 which has 1.5 megapixels!! it stood me in good stead for many years, but I know what cameras I prefer nowadays and I am afraid the Fuji isn't one of them, perhaps I have misunderstood but I read your words as if more pixels are a bad thing?

More megapixels for a given sensor generation -> more noise, and the sensor may out-resolve the lens. Your SLRs have much bigger sensors and hence the 12 (or whatever) MP resolution is appropriate. Who knows if someone could make a 6mp compact with today's tech that looked good at iso 400-1600, they don't make them because of marketing constraints.

 

[r.j.s]

I don't understand what you mean by this, what's wrong with 10 or 12 megapixels? I have a Canon 400D and a Canon 5D mk 1, but I still have my first digital camera, a Fuji MX-1700 which has 1.5 megapixels!! it stood me in good stead for many years, but I know what cameras I prefer nowadays and I am afraid the Fuji isn't one of them, perhaps I have misunderstood but I read your words as if more pixels are a bad thing?

It has to do with sensor size and pixel density ...

Given two cameras, both have 1/2" sensors, but one has 12MP and the other 8MP. Generally, the 12MP one will produce images that have more noise, since there are more receptors in the same area as the 8MP camera. More density = more noise and less quality, because each receptor needs more power to collect the same amount of light as a larger receptor.

It's part of the reason DSLRs have such better image quality than P&Ss, the sensors are so much bigger.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't understand what you mean by this, what's wrong with 10 or 12 megapixels? I have a Canon 400D and a Canon 5D mk 1, but I still have my first digital camera, a Fuji MX-1700 which has 1.5 megapixels!! it stood me in good stead for many years, but I know what cameras I prefer nowadays and I am afraid the Fuji isn't one of them, perhaps I have misunderstood but I read your words as if more pixels are a bad thing?

12 Megapixels can be great in a DSLR. But crammed into the tiny little sensor of a point and shoot camera who's optics couldn't even dream of resolving that kind of pixel density anyway, it does become a problem.

ISO 80 on this camera looks OK (just) but once you get to 200, say bye bye to any sort of detail.

But that's the status quo these days I suppose.

SLC

 

[ukuleleman]

Thank you guys

Thanks for that guys, I understand now, although I have to say that my wife's 12 mega Fuji F100 (sounds like a jet fighter!) with 'Super CCD' (whatever that may be) takes really nice pictures although I haven't experimented with higher ISOs. probably never will!

 

[leighonigar]

Thanks for that guys, I understand now, although I have to say that my wife's 12 mega Fuji F100 (sounds like a jet fighter!) with 'Super CCD' (whatever that may be) takes really nice pictures although I haven't experimented with higher ISOs. probably never will!

The f100 is one of the better cameras in this regard. The super CDD has a special structure with octagonal photosites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_CCD

 

[compuwar]

Given all the P&S advancements, I'd probably have held off until September to see how the field pans out...

 

[ukuleleman]

The f100 is one of the better cameras in this regard. The super CDD has a special structure with octagonal photosites.

A lucky buy on our part then, I have had several Fujis before going into Canon DSLRs and always been pleased with the results that they gave.